Taking the h2h argument, Davydenko is a better player than Nadal, and Murray is more of an all-time GOAT then Federer.

Click to expand...

Nope. 1 extra win doesn't prove anything at all.

If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.

The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.

The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.

Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.

If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.

The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.

The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.

Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!! Nadal has impressive H2H against the top 3 guys in the game today AND unlike Davydenko or Hrbaty or whoever else he has 11 slams and counting.

No one said anything about him not being an all time great. And it is not hate to think that Federer is the goat. Stop misrepresenting.
In post one you talk about Nadal passing Federer as goat. In post eight you put three questionmarks after Federer being the goat. So you contradict yourself from the start.
How many gs Nadal will need to challenge Federer is a valid discussion I guess. But so far he has far less, and with 2/3 of them comming from one slam/surface, Federer is likely to retain many records over him.

Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.

Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???

Click to expand...

Then Nadal's greatest achievement would be leading H2h against Federer. Fed is GOAT. Beating the GOAT doesn't make one a GOAT. Also we have to remember part of the H2h record is that Fed is the 2nd best player on clay. Had he been a worse clay court player his H2h against Rafa will actually improve! this tells you H2H isnt the objective measure of success in its own.

What makes Fed the GOAT is the 17 slams plus all the other records. ATP top 100 have vast amount of talents. One just need to watch the Rosol Nadal's match to realize how it is near impossible to make 17 finals, let alone 17 titles. Nadal is one of the greatest player in his time. But beating Fed doesn't quite make him the second GOAT in my subjective opinion. There are quite a few others like Pete for that spot.

Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.

Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.

Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.

Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.

If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.

Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.

Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.

Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.

Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.

If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.

As for your statement above, you are welcome and fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. All I know is mathematics is the law of the universe, everything else is subjective, my friend. I think Djokovic has more quality slams than both Federer and Nadal...

Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.

Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.

Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.

Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.

If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.

To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.

Click to expand...

No one's going to remember who Fed beat to win his majors. But he beat the players who beat the top guys. You can only beat the ones across the net. That is fact.

While I got nothing against him expressing his opinion, he's entitled to it. The one thing that I find funny is the last line, about any unbiased fan knowing Nadal had it more difficult - This coming from a hardcore Nadal fan. Obviously, there was no bias in that statement.

Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.

Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.

Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.

Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.

If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.

To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.

Click to expand...

What about it? Why don't you throw in Rosol in your speculation and see how it turns out?

If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.

The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.

The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.

Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now it doesn't only have to be a better H2H, it has to be a better H2H by whatever margin you want. Only then will you accept it?

Right, so if Djokovic gets a leading H2H over Nadal by beating him in Masters, and/or slams, YET does not finish with more slams than Nadal, then I want to hear you say that Djokovic is the GOAT, because the H2H over Nadal means he must be better than Nadal, who must be better than Djokovic.

Isn't it bizarre that some of his fans believe the entire field means nothing but one player means everything? You could say Davy is better than his rivals because of his h2h against Nadal(one player). Who cares about 11 > 0.

Isn't it bizarre that some of his fans believe the entire field means nothing but one player means everything? You could say Davy is better than his rivals because of his h2h against Nadal(one player). Who cares about 11 > 0.

Eh...all of their slams they've won was when both are on the pro tour. Fed 1998 and Nadal 2001 was the time they turned pro, so it's the same field, not like the split fields during the 60s.

Click to expand...

Apparently, only selective H2H matter. Oh and of course Federer has been in peak form from 2004 all the way to 2010. While Nadal had a four month peak in 2008....2011 Nadal was way past his peak....way past it.

As for your statement above, you are welcome and fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. All I know is mathematics is the law of the universe, everything else is subjective, my friend. I think Djokovic has more quality slams than both Federer and Nadal...

Click to expand...

haha. According to sharpshooter, 6 has to be greater than 11 because of more quality. Personally I don't see how quality is difference when all of them are competing against one another. Anyone could argue that if the AO was always played on rebound ace with prime Fed and Safin, who knows if Nole would still have 4 AO titles. Or prime Fed stop Nole in 2011 Wimbledon. It's all subjective like you say.

Yes, that shows Federer has been around more than Nadal. His 23 SF or better, and ongoing 35 QF or better streaks are a testament to that.

Click to expand...

I suppose he has other excuses for Fed making 18 out of 19 slam finals. And I'm not surprise if he say Nadal could have a better streak than the 18/19 finals had he was in Roger's shoes. Oh, he could even believe Nadal would have more than 237 weeks at #1 too.

haha. According to sharpshooter, 6 has to be greater than 11 because of more quality. Personally I don't see how quality is difference when all of them are competing against one another. Anyone could argue that if the AO was always played on rebound ace with prime Fed and Safin, who knows if Nole would still have 4 AO titles. Or prime Fed stop Nole in 2011 Wimbledon. It's all subjective like you say.

Click to expand...

Exactly TMF! You get it. That was why I said that about Djokovic, because even I can make that argument, because it is all subjective.

Again, I will say it. Mathematics is the universal law. And 17 is greater than 11. Just as 11 is greater than 6. And 6 is greater than 1.

I mean does Rafa's titles have a gold aura that shines up the room when you switch the lights off, showing that they are of more quality or something?

I always find it interesting to see and read how the human brain works. Take sharpshooter/ Lonewolf for example. He'd argue that one has to examine the factors and would counter the simple Mathematical fact of 17>11 by speculating about weak eras and peaks. Interestingly, a very dodgy interpretation follows which suggests that Federer was at his peak in both pivotal matches at Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 implying that Nadal could beat any version of Federer anywhere and therefore Nadal would be better. Since sharpshooter Lonewolf is so keen on the factors and circumstances to review the story behind the slam count, I wonder why he wouldn't put the same scrutiny in reading the h2h? Has sharpshooter Lonewolf taken into account the clay vs other surfaces skew or the observable proven decline in performance of Federer post 2007? Has sharpshooter Lonewolf taken into account the 10 mph slower Wimbledon 2008 final and the change hard court in Australia to very slow? What would be sharpshooter Lonewolf interpretation of the notion that both matches were 5 setter that could both go either way and where he only player in his peak was Nadal?

I mean, if one wants to be taken seriously, one must review all facts with the same scrutiny, otherwise he/she is a bit of a clown